Slashdot Mirror
CATO Institute Releases Paper Criticizing DMCA
flanksteak writes "The CATO institute has published a paper criticizing the DMCA entitled 'The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' From the article: 'The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.'" A report worth taking a look at that puts into words what most of us know already.
I am glad the right wing is getting on board in the fight against DMCA. Organizations like Cato are very big players in the right wing movement and this will certainly have an impact on the republicans who control all branches of the govt and the supreme court.
evil is as evil does
I wish people would stop calling people who share software, pirates.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Exactlty how important is CATO in the scheme of things. Will this report reach the ears of politicians / mass media, or will it go largely unnoticed except by slashdot? I don't think we are going to see the DMCA revoked unless the public cares enough to put pressure on their representatives, and honestly the public isn't informed enough to care. So will this report help mobize people or are they just preaching to the choir?
Philosophy.
The CATO institute is a libertarian think tank. Libertarianism falls into the left wing of the traditional classification of politial thought in some ways and right wing in others.
translation:
I'm glad you can't sell content for my box! Oh, wait...You mean I can't sell content for your box either?
In the end, this won't make a bit of difference in the U.S. until it costs corporations money.
2 003/20030404/default.htm/ greenspan-33.html
Look at patents. People knowledgable about patents and software have almost universally criticized software & business method patents, but the only reason congress and the patent office is starting to look at it is because its costing big corporations money.
You see, the trouble is, when you have people like Alan Greespan saying more copyrights and patents are vital to the U.S.'s economic growth, when congress perceives the entertainment industry as being the growth engine for the U.S. economy, then its tough for congress to vote against these kinds of laws.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march3
Until these same companies feel a pinch from the DMCA, it doesn't matter what the real impact of the law is, it's the message that's carried by the press, by the fed chairman, by the heads of industry such as Bill Gates that will determine the fate of the DMCA.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective
Like I always say, the only way to prevent people from doing something is to make them to not want to do it. (The last part of that sentence is a grammatical headache.) For example, why do people pirate music? Personally, I use P2P networks because the MPAA & Co. is jacking prices way too high. If I can get it cheaper somewhere else, I will, and you can't beat free. (Actually, it's mostly because I can't get the music I want anywhere, really, but that's beside the point.) Other people may do it because they want to "stick it to the man". The man is, of course, the MPAA. Why do they want to "stick it to them"? Because they have too much power.
This pretty much sums up a free market, too--the people decide which companies stay and which go.
CATO is libertarian. CATO's consistent criticism against interventionism and the drug war hardly puts them in the mainstream of right-wing conservatism.
The CATO institute is a libertarian think tank.
They're still very much on the right wing side of many issues, but they are fairly libertarian on economic issues.
I don't read AC A human right
If you hold cordial discourse and publish papers, those in power will be more inclined to listen to you, especially if those in power have agreed with you in the past. If you arm yourself and demonstrate in the streets, you're branded a nut and hauled off to jail for weapons violations, and noone pays any attention to you.
The important thing with this story here is that we have a significant victory. We, the DMCA opposing people of the country, have succeeded in convincing an organization with considerable influence with those who disagree with us that we're right. Now, this gives our lobbiests, such as the EFF and FSF, some significant ammuntion when trying to convince congress that the DMCA is a bad thing. Maybe there's some hope after all.
In the end, this won't make a bit of difference in the U.S. until it costs corporations money.
DRM is costing Microsoft and plenty of other companies big time - by allowing Apple to have a strnglehold on the industry. Would Apple's position be as lofty if every online music store sold MP3's?
I'd probably still have an iPod but not ALL my online purchases would be going to Apple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.
I take exception to the woring this phrase, for the use of "little to stop pirates" implies that there might actually exist some for of DRM that would in fact ever stop piracy, especially the real pirates and not just mislabled fourty-year old women.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The DMCA hurts consumers in more than one way.
First, it hurts the end user or consumer by imposing government restrictions on how we use things that we "own". Or more to the point, we no longer own things that we buy.
It also hurts us that we don't see competition. This means higher prices, collusion, price gouging, and all the other nasties that come along with pseudo-monopolies.
We are further harmed by the lack of new jobs and opportunities. Real growth for our country is not in the 1000+ employee multinational corporations, but in the small companies employing 25 or less employees. The DMCA seriously harms innovation and prohibits companies that are more truly American companies from growing, making money, paying taxes, and employing more workers.
And we get the short end of the stick when these companies no longer need to innovate from the unnatural monopoly caused by the DMCA protects them from newer, more competent competitors. Not only do we not see the innovative, improved, products from fresher companies, we also see outdated technology from the companies that have lost the need to improve in a free market system.
Actually, I've heard NPR refer to them as a tool for the Republicans on at least two or three occasions. And of course NPR is totally non-partisan, so they must be right.
They're still very much on the right wing side of many issues, but they are fairly libertarian on economic issues.
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Libertarians are effectively traditional conservatives and still share much of their political philosophy with the Republicans. They come out with many studies, traditionally siding with Republicans and Libertarians. Many leftist groups have labeled them as a right-wing group.
Cato is to the right. Cato promotes free market (i.e., classical) liberalism. Main stream conservatism, otherwise known as neoconservatism, is a mish-mash of collectivism with some vague lip-service to (classical) liberalism thrown in. Have a look at some of the writings by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, et al. These are your right-wingers. Compare these writings to the writings of Irving Kristol, who started the neoconservative movement. They are ideologically incompatible.
Looks like this is going to come around to a very interesting game of bedfellow swapping:
I'll get the beer if you bring the pretzels -- this should be fun to watch going into an off-year election. Wonder if any of our Ruling Class are going to make a campaign issue of it?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The libertarians, on balance, have far more in common with the Republican part of the mid 1990's than any other major American political idealogy. The only major thinks they have in common with Democrats is they oppose having our military involved overseas and are generally pro-choice. And frankly the Democrats are only anti-Iraq because they're the opposition party and the opposition party traditionally opposes the leadership party's foreign policy. Foreign policies are almost necessarily interventionalist, even the most hands-off of foreign policies must sometimes be interventionalist (e.g., President Clinton), and such manuevers are easy targets for the opposition party. So you can take that one away and you're basically left with the pro-choice issue. Libertarians are also more likely to support gay marriage, but neither party wants to go anywhere near that one, uncharacteristically deferring it to state courts.
If you do a run-down on the issues you get a group of people who are intensely dedicated to private property and individual freedom issues, and other than gay marriage and abortion, Republicans overwhelming want the government out of people's lives and everyday decision making as much as possible. Well, in theory anyway. In practice they spend just as much money on pointless and worthless government programs that don't solve anything.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Alas, Section 1202(f) explicitly states that the DMCA: "This exception permits circumvention and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs ... to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law."
The CATO Institute provides no reference to the legal backdrop regarding the efforts of these exceptions of Section 1202, to the multitude of the same inculpable constituents that it references under Section 109 under the Sale Doctrine, and again in Title II, Section 512. The CATO Institute also never provides details to the "clumsy and ineffective" installments of the DMCA. Their assessment is rough-hewn, at best.
Or better put, it's completely tangential to both. Left (Liberal) vs. right (Conservative) isn't useful, much less accurate, when talking about the border case Libertarian & Statist philosophies. More appropriate is a 4-point diamond with Libertarian & Statist opposite of each other and perpendicular to Liberal & Conservative; with Centrists in the middle.
Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
Quiz & explanation (PDF file)
I would, but the guy was being interviewed on the radio. The radio station in question only hangs onto recordings for 24 hours and even when I want to save a show I forget to. So, lost to entropy, it is.
And I never claimed to be an expert, tho I'm flattered you think I am.
-g.
http://www.homestarrunner.com/
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
It's "The Cato Institute" http://www.cato.org/about/about.html. CATO doesn't spell out anything. It's "Cato", named after "Cato's Letters" -- used as anonymous treatises pro-American Revolution by some founding fathers, named after an ancient Roman "Cato", who wrote against tyranny and oppression in his day and age.
I don't believe you. I did a google search and no one called "onymous hero" was credited for anything on CATO's site.
More seriously though, you just came off like a complete and total ass. If I believed that you worked for them, I would now have even less respect for CATO than I do now.
Luckily, I don't believe anything I read. Including, now, anything I see with your name on it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My understanding is that there are four primary positions, and that libertarians occupy one of the outlying positions if you assume that reps and dems are the primary poles in this country - which they are. Reps (conservatives) want to control personal issues and not control the economy. Dems (liberals) are ostensibly the other way around. Libs would prefer not to control either. Populists want to control both. Do I have that right? Anyway, reps and libs have [primarily] the same economic views - free market. And of course, all this assumes we're not talking about subtypes of any of these groups...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is a step in pushing the pendulum back, as is, I believe the forthcoming HDMI/HDCP time-bomb. Just stick to it and the pendulum will go back. When we win, the media comenies win too, look at radio, look at vinal/tape/CD...
Let not your heart be troubled and keep up the good fight.
They are THE libertarian think tank and one of the top think tanks in the nation. (Some other top think tanks are Hoover Institution, Heritage, AEI, and Brookings)
People on the more libertarian side of the Republican party will take it seriously. Personally, I love CATO, but many people will dismiss anything CATO does out of hand because they are libertarian. They are for legalization of drugs, private accounts for Social Security, Health Savings Accounts, school vouchers, repeal of Health Information Privacy Act, etc...
As I said, they are read and respected, but libertarians and people sympathetic to more libertarian ideas are (unfortunately IMHO) a small percentage of congress and the population.
Sounds to me like you took a quote out of context, rather than actually finding out what the man said.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Mod this post up. Excellent explanation of what is often referred to as the "Nolan Chart", in honor of the Libertarian Party's founder, David Nolan...
And I'm... too sexy for a sig...
When has Libertarianism failed in the real world?
If you think about it for more than a second, you'd realize what they were talking about. When you heard that there would be a shortage, what happened? Everyone and their mother went out and filled up, topping off, thus causing a shortage and increasing prices. It wasn't the only reason, but it did help lead to a big shortage.
To all you people screaming about how stupid CATO is, what is their political intent, etc, I suggest you read through the entire 28 page report. A lot of facts and examples are presented where the DMCA has been the trump card preventing a number of legitimate fair uses of copyrighted/DRM'd stuff.
Hell, there are even 2 or 3 reference to things like building LEGAL software DVD players for linux, or how Alan Cox resigned from an association because he didn't want to face the possibility of being arrested if he ever visited the US for a conference, since his kernel work sometimes involves reverse engineering.
Regardless of who wrote it or what the hell the political bent of the authors are, it all but says the the DMCA is a stupid act that was not needed since there were already legal means and precedents in existence to cover what the DMCA blanketly prohibits.
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
So what do you think happens when people go hog-wild on gas buying? Does it drive prices down?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
A two-dimensional model is not perfect, but it's much better than a one-dimensional scale. A few examples...
There are "anarcho-capitalists" who are economically on the right, but quite libertarian. The Libertarian Party in the USA is not as libertarian as I'd like, but it's better than the Republicans and Democrats on that score. It definitely falls on the right, and probably somewhere just into the libertarian half of the space. There are members of the Libertarian Party who are truly libertarian, and would fall further down into the bottom-right quadrant (on the Political Compass's scale, authoritarian is "up" and libertarian is "down"). But they are all pretty far from right-wing authoritarians like Pinochet and, yes, the Republican Party under George W. Bush. Pinochet and Bush would fall way up in the upper-right quadrant. The Democrats probably closer to the axis on the left-right scale, but still on the right side (in the US, Bill Clinton is considered a wild leftist. Anywhere else in the world, he'd be seen as a center-rightist), and in the authoritarian side too.
Stalin would be on the "left" side of things economically, but so would Gandhi, or the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain in the 1930s that Orwell came to admire. The difference is that Gandhi falls somewhere just into the libertarian-left (lower-left) quadrant, the anarcho-syndicalists fall way down inthe lower-left quadrant, and Stalin, with his authoritarianism, would come up somewhere in the upper-left quadrant.
The Political Compass site is interesting. It has a test you can take that places you on their scale. I've taken it several times, and my scores vary, but the overall conclusion is the same. I fall very safely into the same quadrant every time, and with my libertarian-authoritarian absolute value larger than my left-right absolute value. That seems just about right to me.
The cool thing about Political Compass's two-dimensional model is that it exposes as nonsense the assertions by lassez-faire capitalists (like the US Libertarian Party) that leftism is inherently authoritarian (the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain being a great counterexample), as well as the assertions of lefty types that capitalism is automatically authoritarian. Neither left nor right has a monopoly on authoritarianism, nor on libertarianism, and the Political Compass's model shows that and shows where real-world people would appear on their scales.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Don't underestimate the political pull of the Cato Institute and other lobbying institutions founded by the Koch family. They are very influential to the other business-friendly, anti-regulation political think-tanks including those followed by more Republican than Liberatarian politicians. In addition, the David Koch donates an awful lot of money to Republicans. If his think tank gets involved against the DMCA, we might see to chance of progress here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The USA-PATRIOT act is a lot worse.
True. However, can you point to any examples where Cato actually falls into anything remotely close to left wing? For example, take a look at their briefing papers. Where are the position papers on issues of equality that are the hallmark of left-libertarian thought? The fact that there are libertarians with more leftist views as traditionally described does not mean Cato is one of them. In fact, it isn't. It's one of the organizations that promotes the right-wing, free market religion.
Back before the previous Canadian government was defeated and Bill C-60 (Canada's DMCA) was pending, I wrote a fairly in-depth article along this line (i.e., the likes of the DMCA being mostly useful for anti-competitive behavior) and sent it to the various cabinet ministers and MPs. A lot of the responses I got back seemed to be hung up on the need for academic access to copyrighted works. I'm guessing that was because I identified myself as coming from a University in the cover letter, and that was about as far as several of the MPs bothered to read.
In any event, it will all be coming around again. Bill-C60 has gone down the tubes with previous government, but the industry is still lobbying, and the WPPT and WCT treaties require the Canadian government to do something. On a positive note, from what I've heard, it sounds like Bev Oda (the new Canadian Heritage Minister) has connections on both sides of the plate and could very well be interested in trying to strike a balance. She certainly wrote me back an informed response to my article. Here's hoping there will at least be a clause requiring actual copyright infringement to award damages.
For the interested, the paper and another on the CRIA can be found here. At the time, I tried a couple of times to get it posted to Slashdot, but the powers that be must have not felt it to be sufficiently interesting/relevant.
First off, I am a huge fan of Cato, and I subscribe to several of its publications.
But, the blurb is misleading. The DMCA isn't DRM technology it's simply regulation.
I do not like the DMCA, but I do like legitimate DRM technology. If someone engineers a product to make it difficult to copy, that is their business. If you copy it and violate copyright, that's their business, but we don't need an intermediate law saying it's illegal to even attempt to crack the DRM scheme.
In other words, the technology should stand on its own.
Amazing magic tricks
I recently came into possession of a free iPod Shuffle, and since I was away from home I put it on my laptop at work. I learned a day later that you can only install iTunes onto one computer otherwise it will try to delete the music you've put on the iPod from the other computer.
Thinking that was a pretty crappy way to operate something that should be as easy to add music to as copying files though My Computer to the iPod removable drive, I did a google search that would be illegal in the United States of America.
I came up with this:
software that operates the Shuffle without running iTunes *
which allows me to copy music to my iPod and generate a playlist without iTunes messing up my life.
*Offer void in the United States of America. Turnabout from the infamous [at least in the Rest of the World] "Offer void outside of the USA" is pretty sweet I do say so myself.
Oh You POS
It's nice to want things, but this use of pirate is long-established.
As one example, in the late 1870's, the pirate theme of Gilbert & Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance" was inspired by pirate (unauthorized) productions of their earlier works.
It premiered near-simultaneously in New York and England to cope with limitations of the copyright law of the day.
"Remember, even in manual mode you will not be able to copy music from your iPod back to iTunes."
With my iPod music, I can drag a mp3 file from the iPod drive to my hard drive in Explorer. Can your manual mode do that?
Oh You POS
Rather than a four point diamond, I find a simple 2D Cartesian grid with axes representing economic policy (socialist vs. free market) and views on personal liberties (authoritarian vs. libertarian) more intuitive.
Of course, it's not my idea. I was introduced to it years ago from the (very similar) quiz at The Political Compass.
Assuming a [-10,10] range for each of the axes (in the order stated above), I would think of the US Libertarian ideal as falling in the lower right (free market libertarian). The nice thing is that you can get convenient scores on the two axes independently, and compare with other people, without necessarily using the potentially loaded nomenclature from the quiz on theadvocates.org. (Also standard orthogonal axes make more sense to me than a diamond. I don't get why they thought a 45 degree rotation would be a good idea.)
You slept through the Economics 101 class where they explained "supply and demand", right?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Actually, Libertarians are less trusting of people than others, but in ways you may be unaccustomed to.
For example, we assume people are no more trustworthy because they've been elected or appointed to a government position. So having government officials overseeing some area to guard against crooked companies is not seen as a solution, since the officials are just as likely to be crooked - and if they are they can cause a lot more damage.
This perspective of deep distrust and cynicism is confusing to many, and can lead to the misunderstanding of the parent article, but once you get used to it, it can be quite productive and enlightening.
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
;-)
I find the picture developed here (referred to by the author as the "Rational Spectrum") to be much more illuminating than the standard left/right scale or even the Nolan Chart or Political Compass.
My problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to me to be much more gung ho about ripping out the safety net before fixing the problems that it (poorly) addresses.
My wife (British, pretty loony lefty on some topics) and I were watching (on TV) a presentation by the Cato institute about the disparity of wages between men and women. Their point was that there really isn't much of one if everything is taken into account. We were discussing it and she pretty much totally agreed with what the presenter had to say. Her face dropped when I told her who Cato is
Of course when we were watching the Katrina aftermath and how quickly "civilization" deteriorated afterwards. She turned to me and said, "That shotgun I said I'd never live in the same house as....just don't let me see it."
Actually, the phrase is clearly referring to "DRM technologies" in general.
Yes, And...?
My point is that no DRM will ever work to stop a pirate. At a fundamental level DRM cannot stop piracy from a product that is meant to actually be used by a consumer. That holds for all existing form of DRM (as we have seen) and all future forms of DRM (as we shall see). So my comment matched perfectly the expanse of the original.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I note that France's National assembly recently adopted a bill that balanced criminal and civil penalties for circumventing systems deemed to implement DRMs with a clause saying that publishers of DRM systems should be ready to give out specifications of these DRMs to anybody willing to implement a compatible player.
This move was derided in the US as some "anti-iPod law".
Well, the motivation for this was that the criminal and civil penalties initially envisioned by the DADVSI law would have de facto created a new kind of intellectual property around DRMs, with DRM companies potentially being able to prosecute competitors for making compatible players (which can be easily construed as facilitating the weakening of the protection).
The law was then balanced so as to avoid this.
Without attacking you personally, I would say that you should study things before making ignorant statements like this.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few key points:
-limited government
-free markets
-individual liberties
-personal responsibility
Libertarians are actually split on abortion and they don't usually discuss it because it tends to divide. Some libertarians think that it is the right of the mother to choose, other libertarians think that the unborn child is an individual and is entitled to the same liberty that every other human individual is.
And your gay marriage comment especially shows your ignorance about libertarianism. Most libertarians think that marriage is between two people (and their deity if they choose), and the government has nothing to do with it. In otherwords why would the government need to get involved in a contract between two people or a religious belief?
So again, with all due respect, please know about what you are discussing before you make a post.
Libertas in infinitum
I am not denying that a majority 55-70% of Libertarians are former Republicans. But the party also has its share of former Democrats too.
The Libertarian and Constitution parties are very similar, they both want to return to the basic fundamentals of government. The Libertarian party is based upon a political philosophy (libertarianism) and the idea that government at all levels should be limited.
The Constitution Party tends to be more constitutional conservatives, meaning they would rather have more powers in the hands of the individual states than the federal government.
The Libertarians are very strong on civil liberties as the Democrats claim to be, but mostly give lip service too like the Republicans give to fiscal conservatism.
Libertas in infinitum
There you go - I'm apparently a libertarian!
Maybe he went on to take later class where they explained price collusion?
Duh? We needed a study to tell us this?
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
My problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to me to be much more gung ho about ripping out the safety net before fixing the problems that it (poorly) addresses.
I find that the LP is far more concerned in the near term with removing obstacles to economic development and personal liberty than the dismantling of the welfare state. They both need to be done, but it's far more urgent to end corporate welfare than to end welfare dependency of individuals.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I find that the LP is far more concerned in the near term with removing obstacles to economic development and personal liberty than the dismantling of the welfare state.
Were I convinced of this, I'd be much more supportive of them.
They both need to be done, but it's far more urgent to end corporate welfare than to end welfare dependency of individuals.
I agree totally.
Do you have a reference to somewhere the Libertarian Party actually agrees with us on this?
In theorey, the republicans and democrats have a great deal more in common than does the libertarians. Get past the lip service of what republicans say. Look at what they do.
The speak of balanced budgets. Well, the last republican to run a balance budget was Nixon. The last before that was Lincoln. Basically, they do not balance budgets. In fact, some 95% of the deficit is republican.
Republicans speak of competition. Yet, did you see any competition for servicing Iraq? How is hallibutron doing?
They speak of freedom for all, while denying to all else.
They speak of minimzing gov, yet W and reagan built up more gov, then any dem. has in my life time (born in 59).
They speak of staying out of other nations business, yet, nearly all republicans have started a war or invasion.
I always find it funny that republicans deliver so much lip service and it has NOTHING to do with what they do.
BTW, do not get me started with dems. They are just as bad.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Left is collectivist, which subsumes every totalitarian system that has ever existed; when the "collective" (the nation, society, the "whole") is exalted above the individual, "the good of the whole" (which is usually decided by a ruling class) always comes at the expense of the individual, and authoritarian measures are needed to enforce this. For example, there can be no such thing as a "leftist libertarian," because leftism (collectivism) is inherently totalitarian. The "collective" rules.
Right, on the other hand, is individualist. The socio-economic system of the right is capitalism with a small government whose only function is to ensure the protection of its citizens' rights. There can be no such thing as a "right authoritarian," because individualism is inherently anti-authoritarian.
Notice also that there can be no "blending" or "mixture" between these two ideologies, as they are mutually exclusive. A left-right "gradient scale," then, is also fallacious; so-called "mixed systems" always result in rent-seeking, which is collectivist.
For some good info on these ideas, check out the authors I mentioned in the other post, as well as Ludwig von Mises, John Locke, and Ayn Rand.
me too, brother, me too.
man, I feel like mold.
"If I remember correctly even Jesse Helms (the ORIGINAL SPONSOR of the DMCA)"
You say that as if you believed he read the bill before proposing it and voting in favor of it.
"Libertarians are fond of pointing out that the whole "left-right" thing is an artificial constriction to one axis what is better measured by at least two axes".
It's called the Nolan chart after David Nolan.
I wasn't trying to tromp. It looked like he had a problem expressing what he wanted to say, so I offered that it would help, when putting together the kind of sentence he was attempting, to think of "to + verb" as one word.
Sorry for sounding like a know-it-all, which I evidently did thoroughly.
But the infinitive thing is still good form.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Foreign policies are almost necessarily interventionalist, even the most hands-off of foreign policies must sometimes be interventionalist (e.g., President Clinton), and such manuevers are easy targets for the opposition party.
Please describe to me one instance of foreign intervention, the necessity of which has never been in dispute.
It's the most articulate post so far.
THAT'S THE POINT! It inconveniences users while doing little to stop pirates.
You have the general idea right but not the wording.
DRM does not do "little" to stop pirates. It does "Nothing". Which was and is my whole point, I'm sorry you misunderstood my original post.
Saying "little" implies that at some point, at some time, it may actually stop a pirate. Nope.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, according to The Black Book of Communism (which has a decent reputation, as I understand), the figure is around 85 to 100 million, all told.
Libertarians differ from the Right in that they believe in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Libertarians differ from the Left in that they believe in the Second Amendment. Libertarians shudder when politicians talk about the Almighty Lord, they shudder when they talk about the evil of video games, they shudder when they talk about family values, redistribution of wealth, the "Communications Decency Act" (or whatever doublespeak code it's being described as this week). In fact, they have a righteous cynicism when politicians say anything. Can you blame them?
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Do you support, for example, the dissolution of the FDA? No? Then you're not a Libertarian. No political philosophy can be accurately described in a two-sentence soundbite, especially not one that describes Libertarians as the only ones who really support "freedom".
LOAD "SIG",8,1
CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.
Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.
CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".
CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.
Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:
Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:
Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:
Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.
CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
CATO's fervent anti-interventionism is a thing of the past.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I nearly spit my drink out my nose when I read that. I'm very far from left-wing, but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun. Thanks for the laugh.
Copies here and here.
"[DRMs] inconvenience legitimate users" is the understatement of the century.
DRMs, Big Software's legal departments, the BSA, rediculous EULAs, and absurd copy protection make commerical, closed-source software unusable.
That's why I made the jump to Knoppix Linux.
That's why we are installing the Gnu Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) on 200+ computers instead of Adobe's Photoshop.
Andy Out!
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
"don't stop the rich and powerful from
getting richer and more powerful"
Is there anything wrong with this philosphy? Or is it just your jealousy?
Face it...a poor person never gave you a job. A union never gave you a job. Your options are:
a) You become self-employed
b) Get a job from the government
c) Get hired by some rich guy
Just something to think about. I work in a small company for a rich guy. He has a million-dollar house in the islands and a half-million dollar condo here in Atlanta (which is very high dollar real estate here). I don't mind working for him. He's almost never home and rarely sees his family. I rarely travel work work. My wife works for the government and my benefits are WAAAY better than hers. I'll take the rich guy over the government any day.
I am a supporter of the Libertarian party and even more so of the Constitution Party. I believe in limited government....There is coming a time when control oriented governments and cartels will be a thing of the past.
From the Constitution Party Platform:
"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources."
In other words, the government will command you not to engage in trade that they disapprove of. They will command you as to what you are allowed to put into your own body.
"The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders."
In other words, only people whose character meets their arbitrary standards are worthy of honor and respect. The government will command you as to that which is considered "moral".
"We stand against so-called 'sexual orientation' and 'hate crime' statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression."
In other words, the government will command you as to what "appropriate" sexual behavior is and they will support those who wish to abuse those who fall outside of government standards.
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."
In other words, the government will command you to not gamble.
"We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand."
In other words, the government will command that Christianity receive special blessing from the government.
The Constitution party is not a party that loves indivudal liberty. It is a Christian party that seeks to impose Christian ethics on everyone through the force of government. It seeks to create the "control-oriented" government that you claim will be a "thing of the past".
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Yes.
No political philosophy can be accurately described in a two-sentence soundbite, especially not one that describes Libertarians as the only ones who really support "freedom".
Libertarians may not be the ONLY ones that support freedom, but they are the largest party that does. Democrats and Republicans certainly do not.
I urge you to read the Libertarian Platform. You will find that the platform doesn't just use the word "freedom" alot, the entire platform is built upon the philosophy of liberty with no exceptions or asterisks or addendums. Libertarians call themselves the "party of principle" because they are unwilling to let go of a single ounce of freedom or to succumb to the fickle demands of lobbyists, corporations, or special interest groups. I respect Libertarians for their unwavering ideals, and regardless of their ability to win major elections (mostly due to suppressive, anti-free-speech campaign finance laws), I will always vote for them because I'd rather vote for something I believe in and lose the election, than vote for something I didn't believe in, and lose my self-respect.
I think, therefore I doh.
Classical liberalism was defined by the positions of the 18th century. So depending on what you are conserving, you could be relatively left or right wing.
If you are trying to conserve Constitutional freedoms, you could be considered a modern conservative or a classical liberal.
A conservative of today is not the same thing as a conservative of 150 years ago, etc.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Leftist (US Democrat): Social freedom Yes, Economic Freedom No
Rightist(US Traditional Republican): Social Freedom No, Economic Freedom Yes
Fascist (Bush/Neoconservatives): Social freedom No, Economic Freedom No
Libertarian: Social freedom Yes, Economic Freedom Yes
IMHO Economic Freedom would include such things as low or no taxes, low or no deficit spending, elimination of corporate subsidies, minimal or no copyright and IP laws.
IMHO Social Freedom would include such things gay rights, limits on governmental surveillance of citizens, the right to abortions, open elections, open government, separation of government and religion.
Obviously, some nuances exist.
Disclosure: I hate Bush.
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Your arguement is akin to calling ME a "state" because I have been "elected" to protect my house and any residents and property inside of it. However, the only time I would actually be a "state" in a libertarian sense, is if someone tried to steal from me, enslave me, or kill me...in those cases, I would pull out a gun and blast a cap in their ass. During times of "peace" (no slavery, murder, or theft), the state in theory doesn't innitiate any action or force and therefore doesn't exist.. The Libertarian "state" only exists when it needs to react to violence, slavery and theft, just as my gun only exists (ie, comes out of the drawer) when someone tries to invade my home.
On the contrary, Democrats and Republicans want the "state" to never be at rest. They want the state to be proactive and perpetually invasive. In these cases, the state always exists because the state is always meddling in the lives and affairs and finances of its constituents. If I were a state in this sense, it would be like me taking out my gun and constantly shoving it in the faces of people in my house so they will do my bidding, pay me a large portion of their incomes, obey all my nonsensical rules, and allow me to search through their belongings when I imagine they're up to no good. This state is a stark contrast to the Libertarian "state" which only exists when it needs to exist to prevent coercive force.
I think, therefore I doh.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Libertarians are very much on the liberal side of social and civil rights issues, but very conservative on economic and federal government political issues.
ie. You should know for a fact that the [3-letter-acronym] is not listening to your phone call, states should have more power than the federal government, and welfare should be the function of charities, not politicians.
This is simply one of the most unambiguously badly written laws in American legislative history.
And surely one of the most successful?
After all, it it the lawyer who drafts the law?
His objective is, surely, to keep himmself in gainful employment?
I don't know why we are so surprised that legislation such as the DMCA and the USPO fiasco are such a boon to the lawyers.
After all, is that not their purpose?
Well, then.
"I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
Uh....
And the point to this tirade?
When I started to read I thought, "Ah, at last, a little insight", but you flatter to decieve.
It rather reminds me of a conversation with a Romanian who said "You think you know fuck-all, but you know fuck-nothing!"
"I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun.
I wouldn't say that it would have been useless. Weapons become a very useful tool whenever the social order breaks down. While other tools would indeed be used more often, a firearm or other weapon helps to ensure that you keep your tools when many others are less prepared.
If you happen to be in an area that doesn't get flooded and have the necessary supplies to survive until services are restored, a shotgun is a very useful tool to have. You can use it on aggressive animals, of both the four and two legged variety. With a box of shotshells, you can even use it to bring down birds to suppliment your diet.
I don't read AC A human right
All true. Though you can substitute terms like 'facist' for populist.
The problem with many of the politicians in government is that they entered politics to fix problems, so they tend to see government action as the solution, not the problem.
I mean, how many politicians run a campaign of 'Things I'm NOT going to do!
The standard 'left-right' scale is a poor predictor for a person's values.
I don't read AC A human right
Is is far easier to apply a critical dismissal that to provide a counter argument consisting of logical information. This is especially so if one is not that well informed themselves, which is usually the case of those who revert to this type of discourse.
Matthew
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun. Thanks for the laugh.
But I don't live in New Orleans. Or anywhere they have hurricanes, or flooding for that matter.
I was merely pointing out how one person got her implicit assumption (that we're all far too civilized for things to break down so fast or far) shaken up by the events.
It will stop people who know nothing about computers from sharing with friends.
Who are not pirates!
Why do you torture defintiions just be able to use a single word in an invalid manner?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All of it will do little to stop piracy. By "little" they're likely referring to the "casual 'pirates'".
The problem with that statement is that "casual pirates" (which is actually not even a valid term, but I'll let it stand for the sake of argument) can always get the cracked/decrypted media from the "hardcore pirates". Again for any media meant to be viewed by the public all it takes is one person to crack it and then everyone has it - so for protection to have an impact greater than zero it has to assume there will be no hardcore attacks, an invalid assumption.
Thus little being greater than zero makes the use of the term simply wrong.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It will stop casual piracy. Technically versatile pirates are extraordinarily rare
Rare out of the whole population of the planet = thousands of incredibly sophisticated hackers. All it takes is one of them to crack and release something and the casual pirates have it. So no, it will not stop casual piracy. The amount of stopping is zero, naught, nada, zip. There is no stopping of any piracy by DRM for any level of pirate you'd care to name, even unborn baby "pirates". Why you have let them hijack the language into calling small kittens and cute infants pirates is beyond me, personally I suggest taking back that term and sticking pirates on people stealing and selling for profit.
Most people downloading movies couldn't crack CSS themselves. Proof by example.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dissolution of the what?
I'm not a US citizen, so I don't actually care about the FDA. It's just irrelevant to anyone outside the US.
If having minimum basic moral standards in each state decided by the voters or legislation is a problem to you, and you want an anything goes society, then by all means, support the Libertarian Party. I also give that party support. I am NOT against government, I am against the UNLIMITED AND ABUSIVE government that is promoted by the democratic-Republican Party.
"In other words, the government will command you not to engage in trade that they disapprove of. They will command you as to what you are allowed to put into your own body."
Like I said some government is necessary. I have taken care of children who have had their legs broken because of their parents meth rage. I have seen what much of this poison has done to the youth. Some drugs are a menace to society. With
that said, I also believe in the Constitution Party's stance that drug bust be made only in accordance to the Constitution. That means that there must be a probable cause to belive that these drugs are being trafficked and that SEARCH WARRANT be issued. That means NO RANDOM DRUG SEARCHES (4th Amendment), No Mandatory piss tests (Again, 4th Amendment).
"The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders." In other words, only people whose character meets their arbitrary standards are worthy of honor and respect. The government will command you as to that which is considered "moral".
Most of the people of the Constitution Party believe that there needs to be some moral standard in order for this nation to survive. When public servants use their
power in order to satisfay their lusts (sexual harrassment, forced sex and such) and greed (bribery, theft, cooking the books, etc), it is OUR money they are wasting. Basic morality (no, I'm not talking about religion) should be a concern for everyone. I personally do not like to see my property be used as a brothel or a loal party place when I am away. If the people who did this had morals, they would keep this junk off of my property and where this kind of stuff is wanted.
"We stand against so-called 'sexual orientation' and 'hate crime' statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression." In other words, the government will command you as to what "appropriate" sexual behavior is and they will support those who wish to abuse those who fall outside of government standards.
No what this does is keep the government from granting special protections to certain classes of people that does not apply to others. It also takes away the peoples right to protest bad behaviour. Before 'hate crime' legislation, people could tell perverts that their behaviour is innapropriate and even mock or deride the perverts. However, they still had NO RIGHT to assult, batter, or otherwise harm that pervert. The pervert still had legal recouse against assailants. If you do not agree here, then what about giving special protections to paedophiles, then have the government put you in jail for spitting on that pedophile when he molests your six years old daughter.
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country." In other words, the government will command you to not gamble.
It does. However, the regulation of gambling should be decided by the PEOPLE of each state or community. Under Constitutional law, the Government cannot just come into your home and arrest everyone simply because they are playing a game of poker. The Constitution does not give the government carte blanch authority to do just what it wants. It would put a stop to the states having special powers that the average people do not have such as holding lotteries.
"We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten
If having minimum basic moral standards in each state decided by the voters or legislation is a problem to you, and you want an anything goes society, then by all means, support the Libertarian Party.
I do. It is the only party that supports the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The constitution party does not. I maintain: the only actions that should be illegal are those that deprive another individual of their right to life, liberty, or property. That is the basis of harm.
Like I said some government is necessary. I have taken care of children who have had their legs broken because of their parents meth rage. I have seen what much of this poison has done to the youth. Some drugs are a menace to society.
I agree that some government is necessary. Your statement that "some drugs are a menace to society" is rhetoric. It wasn't the meth that broke children's legs. Banning drugs only means that the black market will meet demand rather than the white market, and that is what we are seeing now. Banning drugs means that you support fabulously huge profits for drug dealers. People should be allowed to wreck their own bodies and suffer the consequences. I agree with you that stupid people should not breed and support government sterilization of people who fail their jobs as parents.
Most of the people of the Constitution Party believe that there needs to be some moral standard in order for this nation to survive.
Empty rhetoric. Many states survive just fine selling dildos, despite what Alabamans may think. The issue is punishing "immorality", not "survival" and you know it.
No what this does is keep the government from granting special protections to certain classes of people that does not apply to others.
Then take away all the special rights granted to married couples. Why do they get the special right to not have to testify against each other? Isn't that a "special protection" to a "certain class of people" that does not apply to others?
Before 'hate crime' legislation, people could tell perverts that their behaviour is innapropriate and even mock or deride the perverts. However, they still had NO RIGHT to assult, batter, or otherwise harm that pervert.
Mocking and deriding in many cases is illegal. Am I allowed to harrangue Christians and Jews for being worshippers of a baby-killing, abortionist god (1 Sam 15:3, Hos 13:16) in front of their children, every day? You are arguing "words don't hurt" and the courts have rightly argued otherwise. Perhaps you remember the "Nuremburg Files" web site that was taken down a few years ago?
I'm a gay man. Do you think I'm a "pervert"? Do you also worship the baby-killing god?
Nope, it means that Judge Roy Moore was persecuted for HIS RIGHT to worship Gode as He Saw fit. Displaying a plaque or a statue in one's place of work IS NOT the same as forcing someone else to worship God in a certain manne
He has the right to worship his god, but that does not include putting religious symbols on state property. That is not "worshipping god" but a brazen attempt to marry the power of the state with the Christian religion. Everyone sees it despite your best attempt to SPIN it at "religious expresssion".
If instead of the 10 Commandments, it was a picture of a sailboat, do you think for a moment someone would protest? Even if they disliked sailboats? No, this is just another measure towards FORCED atheism.
Of course people would not have objected to a sailboat because there is no religious, spiritual, or philosphical message inherent in a picture of a sailboat. Do you think Christians would object if Roy Moore put up a plaque reading, "All religions are pure mythology that have no practical purpose in the life of any human."? Of course they would, and I would agree with them.
It is not "forced atheism", of course. It is the refusal to attach Christian sensibilities to state power, and the Christians naturall
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.